Hall of Fame 2016 Final

After a long Christmas period, the 2016 Hall of Fame is ready and the combatants have been selected.

The poll will be open until Monday 11th when the winner will join Mohammed Ali in the v2 Hall of Fame.

This year, the final six contestants come from a wide range of sports including football, tennis, boxing, cricket, golf, athletics and surprisingly, Ice Hockey.

Make sure to vote for your favourite two and thank you all for partaking in this years vote.

The finalists are:

Sugar Ray Robinson
Jack Nicklaus
Wayne Gretzky
Pele
Roger Federer
Tiger Woods
Don Bradman
Usain Bolt

Loads of debate here, can hardly get a word in edgewise.

I've gone for the Great Gretzky, can't think of any sports person who's dominated the history of his sport quite like Wayne has.

And Pele, transformed the greatest world sport and is one of the few (like Gretzky, like Woods) who morphed from young phenom to mature giant of his sport. Plus I saw him play once. (Actually seen five out of eight . . . . no, not Bradman.)

Good to see Federer gather recognition, but is he indisputedly the best tennis player of all time? Was only king of his court in his own era for a relatively short time.

I voted for Fed and Tiger. If only one vote had been available I would have voted Tiger. The analysis now shows that the fields in Nicklaus's era were often not that strong, and I know you can only beat those in front of you, but Tiger dominated in a era with much greater depth.

It is strangely only on golf forums - where people should understand the field strength argument - where you find people willing to defend Jack as the greatest golfer of all time.

It's nice to see Nicklaus's name spelled correctly :P

Davie wrote:It's nice to see Nicklaus's name spelled correctly :P

That was just for you 

Wayne Gretzky and the Don are the two who are indisputably the best at their sports. Unfortunately, i don't really care for ice hockey so I can't vote Gretzky.

I have a lot of respect for Usain Bolt, he is certainly a name who will be remembered in years to come, as is Federer. But because of his legacy, Don Bradman gets my vote. I think if we did a greatest of all time in say, 20 years i might go Federer or Bolt.

I think arguably Gretzky is the only finalist who is the undisputed GOAT for his sport, so he definitely gets one of my votes. His records & stats are so far ahead of second place, you could argue nobody dominated their sport in the same way that Gretzky did.

Using that logic, i guess i'm also going to vote for Bradman. Again to be so far ahead of the rest of the field - and for nobody to have come close for the last 70yrs is a ridiculous achievement.

Would have Bolt in 3rd, with Federer not far behind.

what dancingweeman said. I think you have to go for those who are the greatest in their sports, and statistically (surely the only objective way this can be judged?) Bradman and Gretzky are miles ahead of their competition.

For all the others on that list, there's some debate as to whether they're actually the best at their sports. Nicklaus or Woods? Statistically (sorry Mac) it's Nicklaus. Robinson seems to be mostly recognised, though I've seen the odd argument for Armstrong, and of course Ali transcended the sport more than either. Pele or Maradonna? another close call. Federer is even trickier, since he's still playing, but so are two of his competitors for the GOAT title (Djokovic still has work to do to join the discussion, but given his recent dominance could conceivably do so), and others will argue Laver, or even Borg above him.

Bolt is also still running, and could seal his legacy this year at the Olympics. Worth mentioning that an earlier candidate Jesse Owens won four Olympic golds in a single games, which Bolt won't manage, albeit Owens then had limited opportunities to build his legacy due to WWII. And then you have the rather large cloud hanging over athletics at the moment...

With Bolt and Federer, it's also harder to judge their legacy. Look back in 20 years and one or both of them may well be judged at the same lofty heights as Bradman and Ali, but right now it's impossible to tell. But right now my votes have to go Bradman and Gretzky.

Two names which really should have been more involved in this discussion are Merckx and Jordan, who dominated cycling and basketball to the same extent Bradman and Gretzky dominated their respective sports. Merckx lost out in a ridiculously tough group, possibly in part due to cycling not having a big following on here (and in the UK in general?), whereas I don't think Jordan was included in the discussion this time around, possibly due to the irregularities in voting his presence caused last time? Shame, as would IMO have made for more interesting debate (not that the names present here aren't all worthy contenders).

Federer's statistics, as things currently stand, put him ahead of any other male tennis player of the Open era. The only things missing are a calendar year slam (best was 3 titles plus a losing final) and lesser records such as most Masters series wins. Harder to compare his record with the likes of Laver in the transition from amateur to Open and the earlier guys who played mainly on the pro circuit. To give some perspective, no-one else has a string of consecutive Grand Slam final appearance beyond 6, whereas Federer has streaks of 10 and 8, separated by one semi-final defeat (so one match away from a streak of 19). He certainly belongs in the discussion in this company, although perhaps falls below one or two others if we are using objective stats only.

I'm with a few others in reckoning that Bradman and Gretzky win any discussions about who was the most dominant in their respective sports, but both have to be viewed in the context of a relatively small field.

Pele - arguably the best of the most global sport, so again well in the discussion.

Woods v Nicklaus is a debate for the golf fans. For me, no doubt Tiger's best would beat Jack's best - longer hitter and better (under-rated) short game. However, in context of the levels of the game in their respective eras, it is a close discussion. Woods has been a great winner, but is much more 'win or nowhere' than JN, who had a huge number of 2nd and 3rd place finishes in Majors.

SRR - Well, the boxing aficionados almost always place him ahead of Ali (along with one or two others), and from what I've read, his prime era was phenomenal, even if he continued a bit too long and so his overall career stats became (slightly) less impressive.

Bolt - I think it is too early to assess his legacy, although he is clearly the outstanding track and field athlete of this generation. Undoubtedly great, but for me currently slightly below the level of a few of his competitors in this poll.

Agree with the comment that both Eddy Merckx and Michael Jordan would not be out of place in these discussions.

Anyway, my votes, after due consideration, go to Bradman and Pele. One the most dominant sportsman ever relative to the rest of his sport (DB) and the other the best in the biggest globalised sport going. Gretzky very close 3rd.

Roger and Jack for me. 2 of the absolute best I have seen in sport.

Sobers was a far better cricketer than Bradman, so was Kallis, their all-round game far exceeds that of any other player; both were top top batsmen as well being brilliant fielders and bowlers, too much emphasise is placed purely on the Don's batting. It can't be ignored that he only played against four countries, three of them were relatively new to the sport and very very rarely played.

For me, Gretsky for being so ahead of the others in his sport, which is more popular world wide than I suspect people think, and Federer who I think is easily the greatest in his sport, even allowing for top notch opposition for that title. Bradman was a great batsman and I suspect will make the list but Sobers is arguably ye better player. Pele had many other footballers in other positions and some great strikers to contend with.

Jersey,
Good call on Gretzky.

But:
Don't understand yr comment about Pele; he burst onto the scene in Sweden in 1958, voted just behind Didi in the player of the tournament voting, and 12 years later won the Golden Ball. His Brazil team won in 1962 and he was kicked up in the air and out of 1966. Three World Cups won in 12 years and acknowledged to be the best player in the World for most of that time. Don't know what more he could have done.
"many footballers in other positions" and "some great strikers to contend with" is gobbledigook.

Prepared to listen to a cogent debate but your drivel is code for don't know much about him.

In most sports it's very difficult to compare players from different eras, the long running Tiger v Jack debate is the perfect example. You can only beat the players in front of you, the quality and depth of the files is subjective and also equipment plays a part.

The exception is Bolt. He is the fastest man ever. It doesn't matter if Jesse Owen or Carl Lewis won 20 gold medals each, Bolt is indisputably quicker Than anyone in history.

kwinigolfer wrote:Jersey,
Good call on Gretzky.

But:
Don't understand yr comment about Pele; he burst onto the scene in Sweden in 1958, voted just behind Didi in the player of the tournament voting, and 12 years later won the Golden Ball. His Brazil team won in 1962 and he was kicked up in the air and out of 1966. Three World Cups won in 12 years and acknowledged to be the best player in the World for most of that time. Don't know what more he could have done.
"many footballers in other positions" and "some great strikers to contend with" is gobbledigook.

Prepared to listen to a cogent debate but your drivel is code for don't know much about him.

Whilst I accept I'm not a football fan, I still know a lot about the sport, and I'm not sure I can definitively put Pele, for all his acclaim and skill, ahead of Puskas, whose scoring strike rate is unbelievable, Cruyf, Beckenbauer, Maradonna, who basically won a World Cup in an average team through his own brilliance,  even Messi at the moment, Zidane? Maradonna I would say is the biggest threat there, I view him as a better player than Pele

Three World Cups Jersey; tough for the cheating coke-head to beat that.
Ferenc failed at the ultimate test, Cruyff too. Messi hasn't done anything on the world stage and Zidane is a legend only in his own mind.

I DO like Franz though, but nowhere close to the game-changer that Pele was.

I will accept that others could do the same for arguing that say Laver is better than Federer, but in the end we have to subjectively weigh up pros and cons of different objective achievements and subjective qualities and in my opinion, it's more clear that Federer was the greatest of his sport (in which individual quality is easier to measure) than Pele was in his (where the argument about the merits of goals over other aspects of play is interesting and there generally seems to be a bias towards goal scoring that I'm not sure is always right. Not that Pele wasn't exceptional at other facets of play)

Alright Jersey!
And I'm a Laver man, although quite agree that, in ten years time, and seeing Roger's career in the context of Rafa's and Novak's, I might well go for Federer. But let's see these guys' careers in the perspective of time.
Cheers

Mad for Chelsea wrote:what dancingweeman said. I think you have to go for those who are the greatest in their sports, and statistically (surely the only objective way this can be judged?) Bradman and Gretzky are miles ahead of their competition.

...

If we're judging statistically and on the basis that snooker has already been accepted here as a sport, then Joe Davis should be right up there with all the finalists.

World snooker champion fifteen consecutive times - 1927 to 1940 and then 1946 after 5 years were lost to the war - and thus for an interrupted total period of 20 years prior to retiring undefeated from that event.

First to make an officially recognised century break.

First to make an officially recognised maximum of 147.

For good measure, 4 times world billiards champion when that game was viewed with significant interest.

[quote="raycastleunited"]In most sports it's very difficult to compare players from different eras, the long running Tiger v Jack debate is the perfect example. You can only beat the players in front of you, the quality and depth of the files is subjective and also equipment plays a part.

The exception is Bolt. He is the fastest man ever. It doesn't matter if Jesse Owen or Carl Lewis won 20 gold medals each, Bolt is indisputably quicker Than anyone in history. [/quote

Thing is we are voting for the greatest SPORTSMAN of ALL TIME. not the fastest ruinner af all time it encompasses a lot more.

For me Gretzky is so far ahead of the field that we are given to vote on,that I honestly couldnt decide on who I would give my second vote.

I am utterly amazed that people would vote for Federer who plays a non contact single competitor sport, Gretzky used to win games by beating the whole opposition team by himself, in a very tough sport, Federer would not have 5% of the toughness or athelicism of Gretzky. "Gretzkys Office" is a tribute to the sheer genius of the man in his sport, he set the direction of his sport from the day he retired to today, Federer couldnt make Gretzky's lunch.

I voted, a few days ago, for Bradman and Pele.  My reasoning was very much along the lines of that given by Dummy Half in his excellent analysis.  

I haven't got anything against Bolt, who is clearly a magnificent athlete - but in the context of this vote I don't place undue weight on him being the fastest man in history. Pretty much all athletics records have been progressively extended over time - many of them by very substantial amounts.  So much of that is tied up with improvements in the science associated with nutrition, equipment, training etc. So, inter era comparisons are even more difficult with this this sport than they are with others.

Didn't realise Gretzky was so popular on here. I've vaguely heard of him, sounds like he was a big fish in a very small pond. Only a handful of professional ice hockey players in the world. You can't really compare the achievements in such a minor sport with those of Pele, Maradona etc who played the global game.

ray,
Not to get into a p1ssing contest, but you can be sure that there are significantly more professional ice hockey players in the World than pro track & field. Probably by a factor nearing double figures. And Gretzky not only blew previous records out of the water, but his pre-eminence has not been approached since.
Had to chuckle at aucklandlaurie's recall of Gretzky's Office!

If anyone is confused by Federer being miles ahead just go and read the tennis board and how worryingly obsessed some posters are by him eg the ones who say they will stop watchint tennis when he retires. They will be creating multiple accounts as we speak to make sure their hero is annointed.

I don't think sport has to be contact to get any extra "quality" as long as it's athletic...

Ice hockey is and has been a major sport in 3 of the world's largest countries, Canada, US and Russia, and various European countries including Scandinavia and Germany. It's definitely a big enough sport to count for me

Coincidentally, Bradman and Pele got my votes as well.

A key aspect was not only Bradman's own stats but also those of his contemporaries and how far ahead of them he was and always will be.

Pele for many of the reasons advanced by Kwini. I didn't see Pele in '58 and '62 but watched him being kicked out of the tournament in '66 and then 4 years later when he was imo the stand out player in the world's greatest ever team. I know some question how he would get on in the game today and compare to someone like Messi. I would respectfully flag there's another question to be asked - how would Messi have got on in the '60s and '70s on cabbage patch pitches whilst having lumps kicked out of him by the likes of Hunter, Harris and Smith and comparable overseas defenders with the referee doing no more than now and again blow for a free kick?

When Ali became our GOAT a couple of years ago, it was said that he transcended his sport - that was right and is relevant to how I vote. Confident that applies to Pele as well. Bradman - admittedly less so but still more than the other finalists and certainly Gretzky.

raycastleunited wrote:Didn't realise Gretzky was so popular on here. I've vaguely heard of him, sounds like he was a big fish in a very small pond. Only a handful of professional ice hockey players in the world. You can't really compare the achievements in such a minor sport with those of Pele, Maradona etc who played the global game.

Ever travelled much?

ChequeredJersey wrote:I don't think sport has to be contact to get any extra "quality" as long as it's athletic...

Ice hockey is and has been a major sport in 3 of the world's largest countries, Canada, US and Russia, and various European countries including Scandinavia and Germany. It's definitely a big enough sport to count for me

CJ I would respectfully suggest that contact does have to be taken into consideration as it demands further of the player, his recovery between games/bouts and reduces the career span of the player/fighter thus giving him a shorter time to achieve .

If you look at wayne Gretzky he played over 20 years in the NHL, with the opposition trying to absolutely smash him, and you then compare him with Roger Federer, well lets just say they have tennis courts at the retirement village that I drive pass each morning on my way to work.

I had never heard of Gretzky until we first did the GOAT here a couple of years back. Whilst total ignorance on my part and others is a poor reason for a proper contender losing out, I still can't help but feel a true GOAT should already have established himself to at least some extent in the minds of voters.

[quote="guildfordbat"]I had never heard of Gretzky until we first did the GOAT here a couple of years back. Whilst total ignorance on my part and others is a poor reason for a proper contender losing out, I still can't help but feel a true GOAT should already have established himself to at least some extent in the minds of voters.[/quote]


Voters? and therein lies the problem, some are knowledgable and some are not, some are Worldly some are not, sometimes the democratic system fails because the vote of the knowledgable carries the same weight as the ignorant voter.

Bottom line: ignorance is no excuse.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:I had never heard of Gretzky until we first did the GOAT here a couple of years back. Whilst total ignorance on my part and others is a poor reason for a proper contender losing out, I still can't help but feel a true GOAT should already have established himself to at least some extent in the minds of voters.[/quote]


Voters? and therein lies the problem, some are knowledgable and some are not, some are Worldly some are not, sometimes the democratic system fails because the vote of the knowledgable carries the same weight as the ignorant voter.

Bottom line: ignorance is no excuse.

Laurie - I think you rather miss my point that the onus to become established as a GOAT rests not just with the voters (ignorant or otherwise) but with each potential candidate.

guildfordbat wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

guildfordbat wrote:I had never heard of Gretzky until we first did the GOAT here a couple of years back. Whilst total ignorance on my part and others is a poor reason for a proper contender losing out, I still can't help but feel a true GOAT should already have established himself to at least some extent in the minds of voters.[/quote]


Voters? and therein lies the problem, some are knowledgable and some are not, some are Worldly some are not, sometimes the democratic system fails because the vote of the knowledgable carries the same weight as the ignorant voter.

Bottom line: ignorance is no excuse.

Laurie - I think you rather miss my point that the onus to become established as a GOAT rests not just with the voters (ignorant or otherwise) but with each potential candidate.

I dont understand what are you trying to say? In what way didnt Gretzky establish himself as a GOAT.

I actually don't understand what laurie is trying to say. You have to be a competitor in a contact team sport to be considered great?

guildfordbat wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:what dancingweeman said. I think you have to go for those who are the greatest in their sports, and statistically (surely the only objective way this can be judged?) Bradman and Gretzky are miles ahead of their competition.

...

If we're judging statistically and on the basis that snooker has already been accepted here as a sport, then Joe Davis should be right up there with all the finalists.

World snooker champion fifteen consecutive times - 1927 to 1940 and then 1946 after 5 years were lost to the war - and thus for an interrupted total period of 20 years prior to retiring undefeated from that event.

First to make an officially recognised century break.

First to make an officially recognised maximum of 147.

For good measure, 4 times world billiards champion when that game was viewed with significant interest.

This, this and this.

I have a photo somewhere of my father and grandfather with Joe Davis. Taken some time in the 30s or 40s, my grandfather beat him in a best of 3 exhibition match. They both considered him the best sportsperson and gentleman of all time though - GSAGOAT

Davie wrote:I actually don't understand what laurie is trying to say. You have to be a competitor in a contact team sport to be considered great?

No, what I said was that it has to be taken into consideration.

Because when it is taken into consideration, and you look at the achievements alone of Gretzky then it becomes more astonishing as to how Great he was.

I don't see why contact would even be taken into consideration, sport is about skill first and foremost; Gretsky couldn't do what Federer does just the same is true in reverse. I also doubt that Bradman would be in this argument were it taking place anywhere outside of Australia or England, his contemporaries were pretty much only English, great batsmen yes but great sportsmen definitely not.

Adam D wrote:The poll will be open until Monday 11th

aucklandlaurie wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:Didn't realise Gretzky was so popular on here. I've vaguely heard of him, sounds like he was a big fish in a very small pond. Only a handful of professional ice hockey players in the world. You can't really compare the achievements in such a minor sport with those of Pele, Maradona etc who played the global game.

Ever travelled much?

Eh? Probably more than you, but not sure what's that got to do with it, other than to give me enough perspective to ignore you narrow point of view

kwinigolfer wrote:ray,
Not to get into a p1ssing contest, but you can be sure that there are significantly more professional ice hockey players in the World than pro track & field. Probably by a factor nearing double figures. And Gretzky not only blew previous records out of the water, but his pre-eminence has not been approached since.
Had to chuckle at aucklandlaurie's recall of Gretzky's Office!

Kwini, I don't want to get into a statistical argument about numbers of registered professional athletes.....but..... there are 6 billion people in the world. How many of them dream of becoming the next Messi or Bolt? Quite a lot. How many dream of becoming the next Gretsky? Relatively few. The competition to get to the top is totally different, scouts operate in every corner of the world to hunt down potential football talent, and raw running speed is picked up in every playground or dusty African village.

I'm not knocking Gretsky's achievements, I don't know enough about the sport to comment, but all the ice hockey fans on here have to concede that globally it is a tiny insignificant minority sport.

raycastleunited wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:Didn't realise Gretzky was so popular on here. I've vaguely heard of him, sounds like he was a big fish in a very small pond. Only a handful of professional ice hockey players in the world. You can't really compare the achievements in such a minor sport with those of Pele, Maradona etc who played the global game.

Ever travelled much?

Eh? Probably more than you, but not sure what's that got to do with it, other than to give me enough perspective to ignore you narrow point of view

You appear to have misunderstood the question, its not about the biggest sport or the most popular sport in the World, its who is the greatest Sportsman of all time.

Boxing probably hasnt got the highest number of of competing participants globally either, but that does not limit the greatnes of Ali.

ChequeredJersey wrote:I don't think sport has to be contact to get any extra "quality" as long as it's athletic...

Ice hockey is and has been a major sport in 3 of the world's largest countries, Canada, US and Russia, and various European countries including Scandinavia and Germany. It's definitely a big enough sport to count for me

Brilliant, geographic surface area as a measure of the importance of a sport.

I'm going to use an equally valid measure. Singapore and Hong Kong are the most densely populated countries on the world. I believe badminton and table tennis are the most popular sports in these countries so we should be picking athletes from these sports.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:Didn't realise Gretzky was so popular on here. I've vaguely heard of him, sounds like he was a big fish in a very small pond. Only a handful of professional ice hockey players in the world. You can't really compare the achievements in such a minor sport with those of Pele, Maradona etc who played the global game.

Ever travelled much?

Eh? Probably more than you, but not sure what's that got to do with it, other than to give me enough perspective to ignore you narrow point of view

You appear to have misunderstood the question, its not about the biggest sport or the most popular sport in the World, its who is the greatest Sportsman of all time.

Laurie, my point was that the achievements of Pele and Maradona are far greater due to the level of competition in football. They have outshone millions.

raycastleunited wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

raycastleunited wrote:Didn't realise Gretzky was so popular on here. I've vaguely heard of him, sounds like he was a big fish in a very small pond. Only a handful of professional ice hockey players in the world. You can't really compare the achievements in such a minor sport with those of Pele, Maradona etc who played the global game.

Ever travelled much?

Eh? Probably more than you, but not sure what's that got to do with it, other than to give me enough perspective to ignore you narrow point of view

You appear to have misunderstood the question, its not about the biggest sport or the most popular sport in the World, its who is the greatest Sportsman of all time.

Laurie, my point was that the achievements of Pele and Maradona are far greater due to the level of competition in football. They have outshone millions.

I know Im probably going to regret asking this, but curiosity begs, Please tell us what sports qualify (under your criteria) to have their players/competitors considered as the Greatest of all Time? besides football.

The NHL and European Leagues obviously have a lot of catching up to do in the British market . . . . . . .

kwinigolfer wrote:The NHL and European Leagues obviously have a lot of catching up to do in the British market . . . . . . .

I think it goes something like, first lets conquer the World, then Britain.

If Gretsky was such great sportsman, why did he pick an obscure minority sport? He should have chosen a global sport like football where could have truly showcased his sporting prowess.

If Maradona had chosen ice hockey he would have outshone Gretsky.

Hand passes into the goal are not allowed in ice hockey either.

Come on, next you'll be castigating Lebron James for not being a jockey.

Hang on a minute. Let's define what a sport is. I recall a poster saying that because tennis wasn't a contact sport that the merits of Federer were some what decreased which is a load cr@p tbh.